THE CHURCH COMPROMISED, PART I: Media Obfuscation of the Scandal

That those within the media, who consider themselves the enlightened elite, are much enjoying the ongoing scandal within the Catholic Church is obvious and predictable. But, however they may attempt to capitalize upon the tragic imbroglio that now confounds the Church, their novel ideas of society serve well to expose the agenda that animates these moral charlatans. The omniscient celebrities of the press have made the abandonment of celibacy within the Catholic priesthood to be their pet cause; but celibacy is not the problem, and moreover the allegations of pedophilia are subterfuge. The issue is the homosexual culture and the modern philosophical systems that propagate such depravity. Assertions to the contrary obfuscate the facts and serve only the enemies of Christ. Homosexual priests are symptomatic of a virulent liberal pathology that has been active within the Church for near half a century, and the true scandal is the ongoing destruction of the orthodox Catholic faith that has occurred under the assault of this disease.

“Investigative” journalists express indignation about pedophile priests, and ignore the predominate fact that the majority of offenses are being perpetrated by homosexuals. Almost without exception, the victims are adolescent boys, and not pre-pubescent girls. The crime is not pedophilia, although it may be incidental in some cases; but rather the offense is homosexual rape. However, the disingenuous press is unwilling to fault homosexuality because those within the progressive media have a great affinity for this perversion. Moreover, to editorialize against “pedophile” priests is to give the appearance of moral outrage without risking injury to career, while challenging the homosexual monolith requires true moral courage—a virtue not in vogue among the sanctimonious elite of the press.

Much is said against celibacy by hostile elements outside the Church who assert that chastity entices illicit sexual behavior; and even some who suppose themselves good Catholics have increasingly voiced their opposition to “draconian” traditions. These new polemicists argue, “Celibacy is incompatible with the modern world.” But followers of this enlightened philosophy ignore the salient point that seminarians enter the priesthood under their own volition, and then only after completing ten years of preparation for the vocation. During this period a man has every opportunity to contemplate his personal sacrifice, which is integral to the sacrament of Holy Orders. The assertion that a man renders his consent to these sacred vows without having a complete understanding of their consequence is absurd. Reasonable suspicion suggests the cadre of deviant priests were insincere from the moment they gave their vows. The homosexual network operating within the Church is a pre-meditated treachery that goes beyond the illicit behavior of corrupt priests or the specious excuses of bad judgment being asserted by ecclesiastical authorities; for the thing has no origin in Catholic tradition, but rather belongs to the diabolical nature of the Modernist heterodoxy.

The priest who is steadfast in his fidelity to the orthodox Catholic faith reflects the sacrifice perfected through Jesus Christ. Catholic celibacy is a powerful spiritual force, which allows the Church to order her priorities in pursuit of the holy civilization that is the Social Kingship of Christ. Conversely, the priest who would marry, like a man with two wives, is conflicted. Unable to focus all his energy upon the duties of either vocation, he cannot achieve perfection in the one, without neglecting the other. Rather than pursuing the common good of the Church, the married priest must settle for “good enough,” and thus he is open to every manner of corrupting influence that works to the detriment of his flock and the Church.

Similar to the priesthood and acting in union with the Church, is the sacrifice perfected through genuine Catholic marriage, which gives proper order to human civilization, and prepares man to occupy the Social Kingdom of Christ that the Church endeavors to establish. Homosexual unions are anathema to this order, and sanctioning the arrangement would institutionalize what is an abomination to God. To equate such “unions” with marriage is to beget only debauchery, disease, and the moral collapse of the civilization that would embrace this perversion—a reality that has proven itself throughout human history. The holy union of one man with one woman, as ordained by God, is basic to the survival of civilization; and yet in the name of cultural diversity the homo-enraptured media espouses a “lifestyle” that works against the propagation of human life and the preservation of civilization. This cult of diversity, being a central tenet of humanism, is based in sensuality and pride. However, like Holy Orders, the sacrament of Marriage is a cooperative effort willfully made in union with Jesus Christ; and both of these Catholic vocations endeavor through personal sacrifice in the hope of achieving perfect virtue: that transcendent grace that abjures sensuality and pride. But the practicing homosexual is anathema to this cooperative effort; for his pride disdains sacrifice, and his sensuality corrupts what is good, denying even the natural order. He is non-life affirming; and therefore, in sustaining himself only through seduction, directs all his energy towards what is temporal. Rather than giving proper order to civilization, and being compelled by that same rebellious spirit who dared mutiny against God, the practicing homosexual shouts: “I shall not so serve.”

Advocacy groups scorn those who opine that traditional marriage, or any other external influence, will heal homosexuality, and the sycophantic liberal press obediently chants the same mantra. However, this widespread contention is borne not of right thinking—that marriage cannot “cure” what is intrinsically a psychological disorder—but rather for reason that hedonists, driven by their pride and inordinate affections, will defend the homosexual culture to spite marriage. For this reason these heirs of the liberal estate have long worked to undermine Catholic marriage, just as they have labored to corrupt the Catholic priesthood.

Liberals perceive the greatest threat against their humanist dynasty to be the Holy Roman Catholic Church, because its institutions transcend all three aspects of the “secular trinity:” Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The uniquely Catholic principle to reject utopian democracy, with its destructive egalitarian principles and tendency towards radical pluralism, constitutes the unforgivable sin in the religion of secular humanism. Liberals therefore expend much energy to portray Marriage as an institution of slavery, while they work with equal vigor to condemn the Catholic Church as being an instrument of oppression—even to the point of claiming that “priestly celibacy incites pedophiliac behavior.” But the precepts of the Catholic faith, and the great institutions of the Church, are inextricably bound to the perfection and salvation of man, whereas humanist designs move against man, like a leveling wind, leaving desolation, and giving rise to despotism.

Having made the supposition that pedophilia—and by implication, homosexuality—are both provoked by celibacy the media exposes the intellectual dishonesty of their case. For what has the vow of celibacy to do with priests who commit sodomy or other acts of molestation against adolescent boys? How does one become homosexual in abstaining from carnal relations? Ironically, the argument places the liberals on the horns of a dilemma, in that their perverse contention has only two interpretations: celibacy entices a homosexual priest to commit pedophilia; or, celibacy tempts a heterosexual priest to become homosexual. If liberals hold the first proposition, then they admit the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is more than coincidental; and advocates of homosexual marriage have steadfastly denied this linkage. But if the liberals abide the second proposition, then they must concede that environmental conditioning induces homosexuality; and this too the homosexual advocacy has unequivocally rejected. Perhaps then the liberal press actually favors homosexual priests if only, being unable to control themselves, they should opt to satisfy their urges through the false union of homosexual marriage—or else under the pretext of consent. However, since advocates of alternative lifestyles often tend towards laws that lower the age of consent, then these individuals are in reality stating that homosexuals and pedophiles, whether they be priests or not, should have unfettered access to our children. Under examination the liberal fervor against celibacy, so casually propagated by the press, suggests that proponents are terribly misguided or otherwise insane.

The mind must resort to a terrible convolution of logic to believe that the homosexual inclination is a unique consequence of Catholic celibacy, for assent to this argument requires a belief that virtue causes sin. Are we to imagine that the man, singularly devoted to purity of mind and body, when acting in fidelity to his highest purpose, becomes the proximate cause of his own corruption? If the gift of licit carnal relations, aligned to their proper function through the sacrament of Marriage, is incapable to solely correct a grossly deviant desire, then neither can the virtue of celibacy, perfected through the sacrament of Holy Orders, solely induce such a desire. A man, whether married or celibate, may be tempted to sin but he cannot be compelled to sin by practicing the virtues of his state in life. There would be no reason for God's grace if virtue were subservient to sin. Those who attack priestly celibacy, claiming this virtue arouses deviant inclinations, would likely impugn the institution of marriage for the sin of infidelity.

The anti-clerical liberal establishment foists the notion that celibacy is an unnatural state for any man to maintain. They do not accept that a consecrated priest is something more profound than a man. But then, these individuals reject that Jesus Christ was both true God and true Man, while they mock the Immaculate Conception, and perpetual virginity of Mary. Others, not being content with heresy, propagate obscene blasphemies: that Christ was homosexual; or, that Mary was a lesbian. Such diabolical opinions spew from cult personalities who are regularly celebrated throughout media. Like a grand revolutionary chorus, these heretics and irreverent scoffers bellow their perverted novelties with impunity, while the liberal press lends support; and thus by the sum of their machinations these individuals do not merit charitable descriptions of being disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, misguided or otherwise insane... they can only be called evil.

During this period a man has every opportunity to contemplate his personal sacrifice, which is integral to the sacrament of Holy Orders. The assertion that a man renders his consent to these sacred vows without having a complete understanding of their consequence is absurd.

Maybe that's the case now, but it was not prior to the 1970s and 80s.

I attended a Roman Catholic seminary--THE MOST CONSERVATIVE seminary in the United States---from 1969 to 1976, and there was never a sermon, talk, discussion, retreat subject, meditation, or private spiritual direction about the subject of celibacy. None. Nada. Never.

The assumption was made that, if you were in the seminary, you knew how to handle celibacy.

Most of the men who stand accused of pederasty and ephibophilia are men of that time, and prior, when neither celibacy nor, indeed, sex itself, was discussed, except to condemn all exercise of it.

Thankfully, celibacy is now clearly explained with its implications and obligations. And, thankfully, most men ordained today are in their 30s and out of the testosterone-ridden 20s when men made decisions about a life of celibacy when they were clearly not mature enough to make them.

It is also clear that, as St. Paul said, not many are called to live as he did.

While it is not unnatural, celibacy is not the calling of many men or women. Jesus Himself says as much when he declares:

Let him accept it who can.

A consecrated priest is not "more profound" than a man who is called to another vocation. That is contrary to Catholic teaching, especially the recent pronouncements of John Paul II.

In fact, Holy Orders does not require celibacy, as the Eastern Rite, the Permanent Diaconate, and the Anglican dispensation clearly proves.

"I attended a Roman Catholic seminary--THE MOST CONSERVATIVE seminary in the United States---from 1969 to 1976, and there was never a sermon, talk, discussion, retreat subject, meditation, or private spiritual direction about the subject of celibacy. None. Nada. Never."

Now, go back and read what I said, specifically: During this period A MAN has every opportunity to CONTEMPLATE HIS personal sacrifice.

How do you extract "communal discussion" from what I have clearly stated here to be ONE MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOBER REFLECTION? There can be no contention of this point, for the consideration is a black and white issue.

"The assumption was made that, if you were in the seminary, you knew how to handle celibacy."

PERSONAL MEDITATION is appropriate to the gravity of the consequence that comes with this most PERSONAL CHOICE. One man taking responsibility for his own actions and decisions is not a difficult concept, or at least that used to be the norm. Sinkspur, do you mean to imply that a man, who has made the profound decision to enter the priesthood, requires "counseling" to make this decision about celibacy? If this is your view of being accountable for one's own actions, then there is no wonder that the Church finds herself in such dire circumstance. A man makes his decisions and then he must live with them--period. There is no "wiggle room" here.

"Thankfully, celibacy is now clearly explained with its implications and obligations."

Just what part of "NO" do they not understand?

"And, thankfully, most men ordained today are in their 30s and out of the testosterone-ridden 20s when men made decisions about a life of celibacy when they were clearly not mature enough to make them."

Then such men were also not mature enough to enter the seminary; and moreover: had the procter been doing his job by the traditional standards of evaluation, such men would not be allowed to finish seminary training. Immaturity on this level would reveal itself at others--the flaw would be obvious--To wit obvious for those who cared to take notice; but then, that IS the problem we are dealing with now: A corrupt seminary system? After all, you did comment that the period of your attendance was 1969-76.

"It is also clear that, as St. Paul said, not many are called to live as he did."

I rest my case.

Then such men were also not mature enough to enter the seminary; and moreover: had the procter been doing his job by the traditional standards of evaluation, such men would not be allowed to finish seminary training.

Nobody, at age 18, is "mature enough" to embrace celibacy. If a man remains in that protective seminary environment for eight years, with no direction in dealing with sexuality, he will be just as socially immature as he was at 18.

Have you been alive long enough to remember minor seminaries, when we took teenage boys out of circulation? The Church actually thought TEENAGE BOYS could discern a vocation to the priesthood!

I was in a seminary that styled itself on a pre-Vatican model.

A model which was the butt of a well-known joke: The Roman Catholic seminary is the only institution in the world that can take in a man and turn out a boy.

Is it any wonder that 20,000 men left the priesthood to marry when given the option of laicization?

They never should have been ordained in the first place, just like these pederasts who are abusing young men.

A corrupt seminary system? You bet. It's been in place for over a hundred years.

"A consecrated priest is not "more profound" than a man who is called to another vocation. That is contrary to Catholic teaching, especially the recent pronouncements of John Paul II."

Really? So you are stating that the priest is just like "one of us ordinary laity," correct? There is no difference between a consecrated priest--a man who is given to absolve sin, to make oblation for sinners, and most importantly--to have the authority to call upon the Lord, to propitiate the offering of bread and wine into the the consecrated body and blood of Jesus Christ... This man is not rendered profound?

"In fact, Holy Orders does not require celibacy, as the Eastern Rite, the Permanent Diaconate, and the Anglican dispensation clearly proves."

We are not discussing the Eastern Rite, we are dicussing the Latin Rite. We are not concerned here with the "Permanent Diaconate," we are concerned with the Priesthood. Don't muddy the waters.

Moreover, by what measure do you introduce the "Anglican dispensation" into this conversation? Do you actually desire to present, as a defense, more of that wonderfully expedient ecumenism of John Paul II, et al, that makes exceptions for all things foreign, but ostricizes the orthodox Catholic faith?

Do you actually desire to present, as a defense, more of that wonderfully expedient ecumenism of John Paul II, et al, that makes exceptions for all things foreign, but ostricizes the orthodox Catholic faith?

Oh, Jeez. Just what we need around here.

Another integrist.

I've sworn off trads, schismatics, and integrists until after Pentecost.

The priestly vocation is no more sacred than the vocation of a parent. Unless you're positing that God favors some men over other men, and those men over women.

If you want to rank people in order of importance, go right ahead.

"Nobody, at age 18, is "mature enough" to embrace celibacy."

Nonsense. That is a matter that varies between individuals. I have known 18-year-old men who were, in fact of behavior and temperment, more mature than many twice their age.

"If a man remains in that protective seminary environment for eight years, with no direction in dealing with sexuality, he will be just as socially immature as he was at 18."

Yes, especially in our time where evey nuance of life requires psycho analysis and touchy-feely self-esteem. This does not even begin to adress the fact that the seminaries are overrun with homosexual preditors... that these once-holy institutions have been purposefully targeted for infiltration by the homosexual cadre. However, that is a point I shall return to in a later installment of my dissertation.

Nonsense. That is a matter that varies between individuals. I have known 18-year-old men who were, in fact of behavior and temperment, more mature than many twice their age.

If they've gone through the military regimen or some other life-changing experience, sure. But the presumption is that 18 year olds are kids because most of them are.

If it were my decision, I wouldn't take a man in a seminary who wasn't at least 22 years old and out of college, preferably with some work and social experience.

But, I also wouldn't witness a marriage between two people who were under 22 either. A couple younger is simply not capable of making that kind of commitment.

"The priestly vocation is no more sacred than the vocation of a parent."

That is flat-out Bovine Scatology, my friend. If you are a Protestant, then state yourself to be as such. What you are contending is that the priesthood and the laity are equal, and that is Lutherin rubbish.

"Unless you're positing that God favors some men over other men..."

Did the Lord not set the priesthood apart? Did Christ not CHOOSE His twelve disciples? Did Christ not INSTITUTE the papacy through Peter?

"...and those men over women."

What has this discussion to do with women, unless you are defending that women should be ordained? Men have their role to play, and women have their part to accomplish under God's plan. Let's not confuse the arrangement. Oh, BTW, God DID FAVOR ONE WOMAN OVER ALL OTHERS... MARY.

But, I also wouldn't witness a marriage between two people who were under 22 either. A couple younger is simply not capable of making that kind of commitment.

You can't make a blanket statement like this. In my family, one of the strongest marriages - and the one that has gone through one hellish situation after another - was one which was shotgun and both were 20 when they got married. That was over two decades ago.

As for being mature at 18, some men are. Not all, but some. Evaluation, of course, would be in order, but raised well, by the right parents, there are 18-year olds perfectly capable of making such decisions.

You can't make a blanket statement like this.

Sure I can. Statistically, divorce is much higher among those who marry under the age of 25. That doesn't mean that an occasional teenage marriage doesn't succeed.

Anyway, "shotgun" marriages are specifically forbidden in most dioceses today because they aren't considered free of encumbrances and are ripe for an almost automatic annulment.

"If they've gone through the military regimen or some other life-changing experience, sure. But the presumption is that 18 year olds are kids because most of them are."

True that today many adolescents are wildly immature, more so than during any previous era; but why is that? I shall tell you: because our society has been throroughly feminized by the liberal culture.

"If it were my decision, I wouldn't take a man in a seminary who wasn't at least 22 years old and out of college, preferably with some work and social experience."

I will accept that argument.

"But, I also wouldn't witness a marriage between two people who were under 22 either. A couple younger is simply not capable of making that kind of commitment."

Wow, we actually agree on something! However, I think that my restriction would be more severe: 28 years of age typically marks the beginning of stability.

What you are contending is that the priesthood and the laity are equal, and that is Lutherin rubbish.

They are equal. I'll get the Vatican II references for you.

Did the Lord not set the priesthood apart? Did Christ not CHOOSE His twelve disciples? Did Christ not INSTITUTE the papacy through Peter?

Being "apart" does not mean that they are not "equal."

Tell me. Was Peter more favored in his vocation than Mary was in hers?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.